In 1971, psychologist Philip Zimbardo transformed a group of college students into "guards" and "prisoners" in a simulated prison, intending to study the psychological effects of perceived power. Within days, the "guards" became shockingly cruel, inflicting psychological torture, while the "prisoners" fell into despair, accepting their dehumanised roles. The experiment spiralled out of control as the boundaries between reality and simulation blurred, revealing the dark potential for cruelty within ordinary people. Witnessing the alarming transformation, Zimbardo was forced to end the study after six days, shaken by the horrors unfolding.
This experiment is often cited in discussions about human nature, particularly in debates about whether people are inherently good or capable of extreme cruelty under certain conditions. The experiment suggests that situational factors, such as power dynamics and the environment, can heavily influence behaviour, leading individuals to act in ways that might be contrary to their personal morals or perceived inherent nature. This challenges the notion that people are inherently good or bad, instead highlighting the importance of external factors and context.
Through a process of deindividuation—a psychological state where individuals lose their sense of self-awareness and personal responsibility, often leading to behaviour inconsistent with their usual values. In the experiment, uniforms, sunglasses, and the authority bestowed upon them by the "prison" setting contributed to this deindividuation, allowing them to act in ways they might not have in other contexts.
The author(s) argue that the experiment has inherent flaws. However, if we were to enlarge the perspective beyond this experiment two key points arise:
1. Human beings socialised and acculturated in contexts that value self-centred and aggressive behaviours allow their suppressed violence to erupt when given authority by the very structures that shape the ideas of legitimacy in the use of violence.
2. A similar experiment in a Buddhist community say Tibet will reveal a very pattern!!
Let’s explore more deeply:
Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that humans are born good, and society corrupts them. He believed in the "noble savage," a concept suggesting that humans in their natural state are peaceful, compassionate, and morally good.
Mencius (Mengzi) argued that humans have an innate tendency towards goodness, as shown in the natural compassion one feels when witnessing another's suffering. He used the example of a child falling into a well to illustrate that people naturally feel the urge to help, which indicates an inherent goodness.
Studies in developmental psychology suggest that even very young children exhibit altruistic behaviour. Research by Felix Warneken and Michael Tomasello shows that infants as young as 14 months will help others without being prompted or rewarded, suggesting that prosocial behaviour is not entirely learned but might be innate.
Neuroscientific research has identified mirror neurons, which fire when an individual acts and when they observe someone else performing the same action.
Anthropological studies suggest that early human societies were highly cooperative. This cooperation was essential for survival, particularly in group hunting, shared child-rearing, and collective defence.
Margaret Mead is believed to have said:
“The first sign of civilisation in ancient culture was a femur (thigh bone) that had been broken and then healed. In the animal kingdom, if you break your leg, you die. You cannot run from danger, get to the river for a drink, or hunt for food. You are meat for prowling beasts. No animal survives a broken leg long enough for the bone to heal. A broken femur that has healed is evidence that someone has taken time to stay with the one who fell, has bound up the wound, has carried the person to safety, and has tended the person through recovery. Helping someone else through difficulty is where civilisation starts.”
This quote emphasises that the true beginning of civilisation is marked by compassion, care, and the willingness to help others rather than by technological or material achievements.
Many religious traditions teach that humans are inherently good or possess a divine spark.
Let’s review the counter-arguments:
Thomas Hobbes argued that humans are naturally selfish and that life in a "state of nature" would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." According to Hobbes, the structure of society and the rule of law restrain human impulses and create order.
Some psychologists point to traits such as narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and sadism—collectively known as the "Dark Tetrad"—as evidence that some aspects of human nature are not inherently good. These traits can manifest in harmful or destructive behaviours.
The famous experiment conducted by Stanley Milgram demonstrated that ordinary people could be easily compelled to harm others when instructed by an authority figure, suggesting that under certain conditions, people’s capacity for cruelty can surface.
Some anthropological evidence suggests that early human societies engaged in frequent intergroup conflict and violence, indicating that aggression and violence might be inherent aspects of human nature, not just the result of social structures.
An Indian Perspective.
Most Indic traditions accept the cosmos articulated by the Sankhyan Rshis, which says the following.
Firstly, there is an Atman/ Purusha, which is Pure Consciousness, and its inherent qualities are sat-cit-Ananda, i.e., it is eternal, it is Consciousness, and it is infinite and therefore blissful.
However, to manifest, this entity allows itself to be enveloped by Prakrti. The microcosm formed in this process manifests in harmony with the laws of manifestation that is the inherent nature of prakrti. Prakrti is ever-changing and has a memory that ensures the continuity of its form and subtle inner matter while constantly changing. This is called vAsana and samskAra. A person is unaware of the Atman/ PuruSha that enlivens the life. The person treats the tangible aspects of the manifestation as the whole of one’s being. This fragment of the whole (fragment since it is unaware of its divine, whole nature) will experience itself as an individual. This fragment will experience the world it lives in, which is also composed of millions of other fragments. It will experience fear or desire when encountering and interacting with other fragments. The field in which these individual fragments engage with each other is called the avidyA kshertam- the entropic field. It will create aggression, possessiveness, fear, shame., guilt, lust, greed and so on. That is the nature of this field.
So what does the Indic perspective say about goodness? Two central ideas would capture the perspective.
Firstly, human beings are just one form of Prakrti and are profoundly intertwined and interconnected with all of manifest reality. From the air we breathe to the food we eat and the materials we use to make things we need, we are inseparable from Nature. When this is realised, a person becomes dharmic.
When, however, a person forgets this and becomes fragmented, their actions become adharmic. A person is therefore neither good nor bad. Actions that are dharmic enlivens everyone and Nature. Consequently, it can be called good. Actions that are adharmic are harmful to the self (in the long run) and to others and Nature. These are called bad. Dharmic actions leave one feeling quiet and equanimous. Adharmic actions reinforces anxiety.
Secondly, Society validates a person’s actions and the approbation one receives from one’s context often becomes more powerful than one’s inner experience. Buddhist societies for example, value equanimity and promote a contemplative attitude to life. The Europeans’ urge to colonise and dominate values aggressive and possessive attitudes to life. Buddhist societies reinforce one’s deep interconnectedness with all of Nature through ideas like co-dependent origination. Western societies emphasise individuality.
Across Indic traditions, a common theme emerges: humans possess an inherent purity, divinity, or potential for goodness. However, this intrinsic nature is often obscured or influenced by various factors such as ignorance, desires, ego, karmic influences, and external circumstances. The path to realising or manifesting inherent goodness typically involves spiritual practices, ethical living, self-awareness, and cultivating virtues.
(Steve Correa is an Executive Coach and Author of The Indian Boss at Work, Thinking Global, Acting Indian Raghu Ananthanarayanan is a behavioural scientist, yoga teacher and author of several books.)